Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9928
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ramesh Singh Thakur, J, Anjali Bhawra, A
Santosh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary – Respondent
O.A. No.1365/2022
For the Appellant: Mr. Rishav Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma
Government servants under suspension are entitled to subsistence allowance, allowing for variations post three months based on justification related to the individual’s conduct.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service Matters - The applicant challenged the extension of suspension and quantum of subsistence allowance citing undue hardship due to no charge sheet being filed for over six months following allegations of fraud involving substantial amounts. (Paras 1, 7, 8)
(B) Subsistence Allowance - Under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a government servant under suspension is entitled to subsistence allowance which can be varied post three months, contingent on adequate justification not related to the government servant. The Tribunal emphasized procedural adherence and the gravity of allegations in extending suspension. (Paras 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Postal Assistant, sought to contest the legality of their suspension stemming from serious fraud allegations and claimed increased subsistence allowance based on prolonged suspension without sufficient justification.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's extended suspension remained justifiable given the ongoing investigations and the nature of the serious allegations, dismissing the applicant's appeal.
Issues: The court addressed the legality of the suspension extension and the sufficiency of subsistence allowance following the absence of a charge sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal underscored that the primary justification for continued suspension must relate to the gravity of the charges and procedural compliance, rejecting the appeal due to ongoing investigations validating the suspension.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the basis of the application and initial facts regarding the applicant's suspension. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenges regarding the subsistence allowance and applicant's financial hardships due to extension. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observations on suspension validity considering ongoing investigations into allegations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. the tribunal's ruling on the matter and justification for the decision. (Para 8) |
O R D E R
Per: HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“(b) Annexure A-1 dated 23.09.2022, Annexure A-5 dated 31.05.2022, Annexure A-6 dated 26.08.2022 and Annexure A-7 dated 28.11.2022 be quashed and set aside.
(c) It be declared that the applicant is entitled to increased Subsistence Allowance after 90 days and the same be paid to him from due date.”
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
I. The applicant joined as Postal Assistant with respondent no.3 on 01.03.2020. The applicant while working as Sub Postmaster, Nither Post Office, an FIR No.33 of 2022 was registered at P.S. Nirmand, District Kullu on 01.06.2022, under Sections 420, 408, 409, 418, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B of the IPC. The FIR was registered in addition against one Gautam Kumar son of Dhananjay Singh, resident of Village Uchila, Post Office Ramdhira, Rohtas, Bihar-821312, who was posted as Gramin Dak Sewak, Nither SPO under respondent No.3. The allegation in the FIR was that 81 ATN Kits were issued at Nither SPO under Rampur Postal Division irregularly by using the Finade ID of Sh. Santosh Kumar (Applicant) SPM Nither SPO against SB accounts of deceased depositors and for those SB accounts depositors who had not applied for the same, resulted him fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.30,32,600/- on different dates between the period 2021 and 2022.
II. After registration of the FIR, the applicant was arrested and thereafter was released on bail. There is nothing to be recovered from the applicant, he is not likely to tamper any evidence as there is no witness except the complainant and the Investigating Officer in the FIR and no Charge-Sheet soever has been issued to the applicant.
III. Vide order dated 31.05.2022, the applicant was placed under suspension on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him under Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by respondent no.3 being the Disciplinary Authority. While placing the applicant under suspension, he has been sanctioned Subsistence Allowance of 50% under FR-53(1) of Fundamental Rules (Annexure A5). The suspension period of the applicant was reviewed by the Review Committee and the same was extended by recording that the gravity of the misconduct committed and the circumstances under which the official was placed under suspension, the amount of Subsistence Allowance was not increased (Annexure A/6).
IV. It is further submitted by the applicant that vide order dated 28.11.2022, the suspension period of the applicant has again been extended for three months w.e.f. 28.11.2022 onwards (Annexure A/7). Since the applicant belongs to Bihar and he is to support his family and newly born child who are residing in Bihar, the applicant submitted a request dated 05.09.2022 and 20.09.2022 to the respondent No.3 for enhancing the Subsistence Allowance and also for reinstatement as the delay is not attributed to him. However, the same has been rejected vide impugned order Annexure A-1 recording that the Subsistence Allowance being paid at present at this stage was found to be quite sufficient. Aggrieved by letter Annexure A-1 dated 23.09.2022 rejecting the request of the applicant for increase in Subsistence Allowance and reinstatement, the applicant submitted a representation to the next Higher Authority i.e. respondent No.2 explaining the delay in initiating the proceedings and non-commencement of proceedings in the criminal case, the delay is not
